2021-04-26 meeting notes

Welcome

Catch-up and gather together

3 minutes

all

PPC did not meet last week.

Announcements

Inform

2 minutes

all

MVP Review

Reviewed MVPs and

15 minutes

PPC has asked all groups to their review MVPs

1. Reassess timelines

2. Make sure all columns/rows are complete.

   1. If the column cannot be filled in, a brief explanation will suffice.

   2. If you are unsure of what to put in a given column, enter your best guess with a question mark.

   3. If any columns have the designation “TBD”, pls indicate what needs to be done.

3. Delete rows that are blank and fill in any that are place holders.

4. Resolve comments

5. Review your categories and ensure they are properly tagged e.g, a service is something your FG is providing (like loading OCLC records); a policy which is a decision. There could also be a hybrid situation where something is a service and a recommendation (policy).

6. Add links for any items that have a decision page

7. Look at all the items you’ve listed to see if they are actually something your group has to do or decide e.g., if a campus wants to request analytics, what is the process? The MVP should only be added to if your group has to either enable something or make a decision about it.

8. Move anything that is part of a checklist for testing to an internal document

Structure for collaboration for CDI management may be covered by the Discovery sub-team post go-live.

One concern is the Discovery team member may not be the Primo VE administrator at a campus. For instance, the Discovery member at a campus may be a facilitator for the discussion, but will not be the Primo VE administrator.

The question is about wanting Primo VE administrators to be able to collaborate and talk or is it about wanting staff members who are concerned about the user experience coming out of Primo VE to collaborate and talk. Not all Primo VE administrators are not all on a SILS team. Is this a system-wide group or a local campus discussion? How do we coordinate across the campuses? These questions lead to the Phase 5 governance structure.

Shout out to fulfillment folks who thought through the patron info on how this going to work.

Workflows for management of the CDI

• PSELG decided to it from our MVP section as the issues will be included in future charges.

• @Sarah Troy will look at the draft charges for phase 5 governance structure to make sure this is included and suggest that it should be included.

• @Rikke Ogawa (Unlicensed) is working on the SILS Operational charge, and will also make sure this issues is also included in the charge.

Review and revision of shared cataloging practices for management of resources, including OA resources.

• add Policy, Data, Service to column A.

• OA Management Taskforce added to column H, as a place holder for the leadership group that will be charged by DOC.

CDI

Discussion & next steps

35

all

Check in on Question 3: How is it going? Has everyone reached out on their campuses?

Focus on Question 4: What has the experience been of other consortia (CARLI, SUNY, CSU, etc.)

PSELG has been asked to pursue Questions 3 and 4. Question 2 has been answered (see CDI decision page).

 Questions from CDI decision page:

1. Do we have a choice of which CDI model to use (FullyFlexible or EasyActive)?

2. Will EasyActive settings be saved from Test Load to Go-Live? (i.e., if we turn off CDI collections in Test, will that “stick” through Go-Live)

   1. Is there a difference for the already-Alma campuses?

   2. How much work will need to be done right after go-live?

3. What are the concerns of each campus?
   See: Discovery FG: CDI Findings

4. What has the experience been of other consortia (CARLI, SUNY, CSU, etc.). EasyActive is a recent development so there may not be many consortia to talk with about it. Note: DFG asked on the Primo list but only heard from one consortia in Australia. They were happy with EasyActive CDI. PMs asked on the ACAG listserv and only heard back from CSU. They are using the FullyFlexible model for local reasons and have found it tricky. Their advice is to watch the latest webinars on CDI.

   1. Which CDI method are they using (EasyActive or FullyFlexible)?

   2. Why?

   3. How is it working?

   4. What advice would they give us?

Note1: The PMs started a sheet with one response from a consortium about CDI, Jessica from CSU. It’s in the PPC “CDI testing” folder. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DRwdlXSTd8I_IGox4fj4DwbKjcxqUFsB3h8FRIN80VY/edit#gid=0

Note2: Question 3 needs to be answered and shared back with Ex Libris in a Sales Force ticket. They want to know what our concerns are with EasyActive.

Everybody reached out to their campus group.

No deadline has been given by Ex Libris, but we should get it done as soon as possible.

We received some information from CSU regarding question 4. CSU implemented fully flexible.

We reached out on listserve, but it may be best to reach out one-on-one with other consortia libraries.

It was noted that CARLI and SUNY weren’t given a choice, and they implemented FullyFlexible. The UCs will be the biggest consortia to implement EasyActive, which is Ex Libris new model. We will need to have a good reason to go with FullyFlexible, as Ex Libris is not willing to support going forward.

• Please add your campus answers to the Google document before our next meeting (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qipo4tKuhpextRUkyvOfrFVq5VQCAGk9Rwa8SS7VosI/edit?usp=sharing ).

• @Cynthia Johnson will reach out to her colleague at CARLI to find the right staff member to answer our questions.

• @Rikke Ogawa (Unlicensed) will reach out to SUNY.

• Let @Beth Callahan (Unlicensed) know if you want to participate on the calls.

Standing item: As campuses start deeper discussions about SILS, can/should questions come to PSELG as information-sharing.

Support learning & transparency. These discussions will help inform members of PSELG re: decisions made by the functional groups.

5

all

Document for reference:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lhjZILResvHFpZp11wgJk2Ac74HxD4U3Qo3JIyRMBO4/edit?usp=sharing

1. Reference CKG in a recent meeting wondered if there was a way to raise questions or concerns.
   - possible for us to look at the proposed structure, and see if we can find a spot where it may leverage into the proposed structure. If we don’t find a spot we can talk to our representative on DOC to move it forward for discussion in a future group.
   -this will be a good test of the structure
   - we want to make sure that it is fair to staff in the library system-wide how communication can work in the structure

2. Circulation loan periods
   - this might be a side issue with individual campus interest.

1. Our group will look at the reference CKG thread this week, and think it through as it applies to the new structure. Write down solutions and possible issues.

2. @Elizabeth A. DUPUIS (Unlicensed) will lead a sub-group consisting of @Sarah Troy , @David Schmitt (Unlicensed) , and @Vincent Novoa (Unlicensed) will share experiences with harmonization on their campuses.

Parking Lot

Capture important topics for future discussion

60